Answer to a Treatise Entitled The Vanity of Childish Baptism, Tract · Answer to tract · Part 1
The firſt Conſideration or Argument taken from the End of childrens Baptiſme: Anſwered.
FOr the End you lay down for granted: Firſt, A. R.that the end of childrens baptiſme in our Church is regeneration. Secondly, that this appeares by divers paſſages in the Liturgie, Thirdly, you adde the Doctrine or iudgement of divers Authours which iuſtifie the ſame, as you ſay. Fourthly, you reaſon from this and ſome other principles againſt us. This is the ſumme of your firſt Argument, which at large to ſet downe were tedious and endleſſe.
Anſwer. Anſ. Though I will not go about to defend every expreſſion in the Liturgie, or the Authours brought by you: yet I may well deny, firſt, your propoſition as you expreſſe it: ſecondly, I deny alſo that the reaſons brought by you from the Liturgie, and Authours prove that in our Church the end of baptizing is regeneration, ſo that the act of baptizing ſhould regenerate the child.
But to come to your propoſition. If your meaning be that the end of our baptizing is properly to regenerate; as if our Church uſed baptiſme that they may (ex opero operato, as the Papiſts ſay) conferre grace and regeneration, it is a ſlander to ſay it. If you meane that they uſe it for this end that it may be a pledge, ſigne, ſeale, or confirmation of regeneration; or to ſpeake brieflier, that we uſe it ſacramentally to regenerate, or myſtically to waſh away ſinne, we avouch it; and this we beleeve is the right end of baptiſme, as you grant, viz. A pledge of the pardon of ſinne, which implies regeneration, ſo Rom. 6.3, 4. Mar. 1.4. Act. 22. &c. And in this ſenſe thoſe expreſſions in the Liturgie, and Authours may be warranted (if they intended any more let them anſwer for themſelves) as being agreeable unto the Scripture phraſe in ſacramentall matters.Exod. 12.1.12.13. Gen. 17.11, 12. Matt. 26.26.28. 1 Pet. 3.21. As the Paſchall Lambe was called the Paſſeover, though but a ſigne, pledge, or memoriall of the Angels paſſing over and ſparing the Iſraelites. Circumciſion is called the Covenant, though but the ſigne or token of the Covenant. Bread and Wine in the Supper, the Body and Bloud of Chriſt, though but ſignes and ſeales thereof. Baptiſme ſaveth us, though it be but a pledge, ſigne, or ſeale of our ſalvation. And why may not the ſame be ſaid to regenerate us, as well as to ſave us? Is not regeneration the beginning and alſo part of our ſalvation? Doth not the whole comprehend the part? And therefore we may and ought to pray for the regeneration of infants to be baptized, (that if begun, it may be continued, increaſed, ſealed, and perfected: if not, that it may be wrought in Gods due time; ſo that baptiſme may have its efficacie.) And give thanks that God hath given the ſeale of regeneration, and ſolemnly admitted them into that Covenant wherein he hath promiſed, the bleſſing it ſelfe.
Let us ſee now what uſe you will make of this, that we hold infants baptized to be regenerated, viz. ſacramentally, as we have interpreted our meaning: whence you gather
That all infants baptized muſt be neceſſarily ſaved; A. R.which is acknowledged an abſurditie even by our Miniſters which call upon baptized perſons to repent, and preach regeneration unto them: Or elſe (ſay you) we ſhall be forced to leave our other principle, which we hold againſt the Pelagians, Papiſts, and Arminians. Namely, that True ſaving grace can never totally, or finally be loſt: And that they which have beene regenerate can never utterly fall away. This is the ſumme of your reaſoning wherein you are very large, as having gotten us at an advantage, in your conceit.
Anſwer. Anſ. Will any man ſay, that all that were baptized by Peter, or to whom baptiſme was applied in his time (of which he ſaith,1 Pet. 3.21. that it ſaveth) were certainly ſaved? Or that it was an abſurd thing to preach regeneration or ſalvation after baptiſme? Or that this doctrine, that baptiſme ſaveth or burieth with Chriſt, &c. is inconſiſtent with that other doctrine concerning the perſeverance of the Saints, ſeeing ſome of thoſe that were baptized in the Apoſtles time fell away and periſhed? Or in your baptiſme (if you uſe any) which you profeſſe is a pledge of the remiſſion of ſinnes; are all certainly pardoned? Or need you never to preach repentance and regeneration to them? If ſo, belike you are happier maſters to your diſciples, then Chriſt was to his.
And ſeeing now you thinke you have got our learned Divines (as you ſcoffingly call them) at an advantage, and follow them ſo eagerly with your horned argument, as if your blow were unavoidable, comparing your ſelfe to Chriſt, and them to the Scribes and Phariſees, Matth. 21.23. Let us try whether you would not by this Argument, baffle and nonplus the Prophets, Apoſtles, and Chriſt himſelfe. For this your Argument holds as ſtrongly againſt them as againſt us, who teach no other thing in ſaying that baptiſme regenerateth, and true grace can never be loſt (though ſome baptized periſh) then what we have received from Chriſt, the Prophets, and Apoſtles. Might you not as well have taken up Nathan for preaching unto David, 2 Sam. 12.to bring him unto repentance and converſion. Why, what needs this Nathan? David received circumciſion the ſeale of the righteouſneſſe of faith, and of circumciſion of his heart in his infancie,Rom. 4.11. and had the ſpirituall grace beſtowed on him effectually; and muſt he now be regenerate and borne againe? And why ſhould David himſelfe upon Nathans exhortation and reproofe,Pſal. 51.10. pray that God would create in him a cleane heart, and renew a right ſpirit within him? (which, what elſe is it but the renewing of the worke of regeneration?Ezek. 18.21. Jer. 4.4.) Why ſhould the Prophets exhort the Iews to make them new hearts, and circumciſe their hearts, though they had received circumciſion? What would Nathan, David, and the Prophets have anſwered this ſubtill diſputant if he had examined them thus?
Or if you had been living in Pauls time, when he called upon the Romanes, Rom. 12.2. 2 Cor. 5.17. Epheſ. 4.23. & 24. Gal. 4.19. Rom. 6.3. Gal. 3.27.Corinthians, Epheſians and others, to repentance and renovation; to put off the old man, to put on the new man, to become new creatures, to be renewed in the ſpirit of their mind; profeſſing that he travelled to forme Chriſt in them againe. Belike this learned Divine (to uſe your phraſe) Paul would ſoone have beene daſht, if you had but riſen againſt him. Why, what's the matter Paul? Did not you teach that ſo many as have beene baptized into Chriſt, have put on Chriſt, are buried with him in baptiſme? What? have they put off Chriſt? riſen againe to ſinne?Rom. 8.38, 39. Phil. 1 6. Rom. 11.29. fallen away from grace, &c. This will not ſtand with your doctrine; that nothing ſhall ſeparate from Gods love; that God will perfect the good work which he hath begun; that the gifts and callings of God are without repentance. Therefore you were deceived in ſaying that Chriſt is put on in baptiſme; or in teaching that men cannot fall away from grace.
Or if you had had Peter in hand when he called Simon Magus to repentance, Act. 8, 22. though he had been baptized; you would belike have leſſoned Peter better. Why, what needs this Peter? Didſt not thou teach that baptiſme ſaveth, and is he that was ſaved even now damned againe?1 Pet. 3.21. ſure thou waſt miſtaken when thou ſaidſt baptiſme ſaveth; or when thou ſaidſt that the faithfull are preſerved by the power of God through faith unto ſalvation,1 Pet. 1.5. ſith Simon that awhile agoe beleeved and was baptized, hath need now to repent, as being in the gall of bitterneſſe, and bond of iniquitie.
Thus if you had diſputed, learned Peter and Paul belike had beene in great ſtraits what to have anſwered. It was well for them that none of theſe acute Anabaptiſts (as they are called) were ſprung up in thoſe dayes. One more inſtance I will bring. Our bleſſed Saviour preacheth unto his Diſciples neceſſitie of converſion, and becoming as little children,Matth. 18.3. as they would enter into the kingdome of heaven. Yet elſewhere he ſaith,Joh. 3.35. Except a a man be borne againe of water and the holy Ghoſt, he ſhall in no wiſe enter into the kingdome of God. Thereby (as you gather) aſſuring us that if a man be regenerate and borne againe, he ſhall ſee the kingdome of God. But I conceive you will not deny but the Diſcipcles had already beene borne againe by water and the holy Ghoſt. Sure in this caſe had you beene in his time you would have more troubled him with your Dilemma, then an hundred of the Scribes and Phariſees with all their Sophiſtrie. What? To teach that being borne againe by water and the holy Ghoſt,Joh. 10.28. they ſhall certainly enter into the kingdome of God: And that none ſhall pluck them out of his hands being given him of the Father: And yet now threaten them with the loſſe of the kingdome of heaven, unleſſe they ſhall be converted, become as little children? (which, what elſe is it but to be regenerate?)
Doe you thinke that this your arguing would have perſwaded the world that Chriſt was a falſe witneſſe of God? When your reaſoning thus againſt the Prophets, Apoſtles, and Chriſt himſelfe, ſhall be found unanſwerable, we ſhall be forced to yeeld unto you; but untill then we (who in this point have their doctrine for our warrant; That though Baptiſme ſave and regenerate, yet baptized perſons have need to be called upon to repentance and regeneration) need not to regard your bold, and confident aſſeverations.
I have the largelier ſet forth the manner of your reaſoning, only changing the perſons, (if it may be) to make you ſee your weakneſſe; if not, to make others aſhamed of their ſimplicitie which admire ſuch diſputers. You would not have reaſoned ſo, if you had conſidered: Firſt, that notwithſtanding ſome abuſe baptiſme, yet that hinders not but in regard of Gods inſtitution, baptiſme may be ſaid to regenerate or ſave. And ſo ſecondly, that they which have received baptiſme according to Gods appointment, as farre as we can diſcerne, may be ſaid to be regenerated and ſaved, viz. ſacramentally. Thirdly, that baptiſme is adminiſtred to the members of the Church; not onelyonly as a pledge of remiſſion of ſinnes paſt, upon ſuppoſition of repentance and faith; but alſo of ſinnes to come; being both an obligation to us daily to renew our faith and repentance, and an aſſurance unto us, that upon the performance of that condition God will pardon; in ſo much that our regeneration, viz. ſacramentall in baptiſme is a main ground, why Miniſters ſhould call upon us being baptized to manifeſt our regeneration in our lives, ſeeing God hath given us the ſeale of regeneration to aſſure us of the grace it ſelfe, if the fault be not in our ſelves; and to bind us to repentance that we may be partakers of the remiſſion of ſinnes; and hence the Apoſtle urgeth converſion or ſanctification from baptiſme before received.Rom. 6. So that if in Chriſts and the Apoſtles time the baptized had need to be called to repentance or regeneration, though baptiſme ſaved and buried with Chriſt: what abſurditie is it if our Miniſters call to repentance, and regeneration, thoſe that were regenerated in baptiſme in the forenamed ſenſe? For even in the beſt times ſome that had profeſſed, and beene baptized, had done it unſoundly and hypocritically, and ſo had need to be called unto ſinceritie: whereunto when they were brought, their baptiſme though received in time of hypocriſie, ſhould be a pledge of the remiſſion of ſinnes;Act. 8. as in Simon Magus whom Peter bids to repent, but not to be baptized againe. Secondly, others might have the truth of grace and regeneration, and yet not give ſo cleare teſtimonie thereof to themſelves and others as was to be deſired. Thirdly, thoſe that had truely repented and beleeved, might have fallen and need to be reſtored. Fourthly, the beſt by ſuch exhortations are kept watchfull. None in this life are ſo fully regenerated or converted, but they need additions and increaſe. So that your conſequences that you draw againſt us from our principles are frivolous.
A. R.Now let us come to your anſwer to our Objections as you pretend: You ſay, that To ſophiſticate by ſome diſtinction, leſt all our gaine by this trade ſhould be taken from us; and as all the people gave care to Philip; ſo all the people ſhould give care to us, and ſo our kingdome ſhould be at an end: we uſe this diſtinction, that they are onelyonly holy in the judgement of charitie, of the Church eſteemed regenerate; neither are any required to beleeve them to be regenerate as an Article of faith, but in the judgement of charitie: and then you ask, What is the ground of this our charitie?
Anſwer. Firſt, I would deſire to know, Whether the Baptiſme which you adminiſter regenerates and ſaves, or no. (I meane ſacramentally, for we ſay ours regenerates) If no, then it is not the Baptiſme that Chriſt & his Apoſtles uſed,1 Pet. 3. for Peter ſaith, it ſaved; Paul ſaith, it buried with Chriſt. If yea,Rom. 6. whether you beleeve that all that are baptized of you, are certainly regenerate and ſaved, or no; and then tell us, what is the ground of your beliefe.
Secondly, Whereas you diſlike this diſtinction, you ſhould have demanded of Peter and other the Apoſtles and Evangeliſts (that baptized ſome hypocrites no doubt, witneſſe Simon Magus, Ananias, Saphira, &c. and yet held that Baptiſme ſaveth and burieth with Chriſt) whether they held that theſe who received Baptiſme were ſaved and buried with Chriſt in the judgement of certaintie or charitie, and then you might have demanded a ground of that their judgement: And ſeeing you arrogate to your ſelf ſuch skill in Scripture, tell us what was Peters ground in ſaying Baptiſme ſaveth, when yet many that were baptized were damned; and what anſwer you ſhall make to this queſtion, haply may ſerve to anſwer your own queſtion to us.
Thirdly, We anſwer directly. Our ground on which we build this charitable opinion, (viz. that Baptiſme regenerateth ſacramentally; or that infants of Chriſtian parents baptized are regenerate) is Gods word. For doth not the Scripture tell us, that God is the God of the faithfull and of their ſeed, that he hath taken them into Covenant?Gen. 17.7.10. Thus God promiſed unto Abraham the father of the faithfull, not as any priviledge peculiar unto him; but as the common priviledge of all in covenant, and therefore proſelytes of what nation ſoever upon their entring into covenant had their children taken into covenant likewiſe. Again,Exod. 12.48. Act. 2.36. 1 Cor. 7.17. the promiſe is made not onelyonly to the faithfull, but alſo to their children. Hence it is, that the children of beleeving parents are holy. Which places of Scripture ſhall in due place (God willing) be vindicated from your groundleſſe exceptions. Now whoſoever is in covenant with God, hath God for his God, hath the promiſes belonging to him, and is holy, muſt needs be regenerate, as he is in covenant, hath God for his God, &c. And therefore ſeeing that children are in the ſame condition with their parents (or thoſe that are in ſtead of their parents) in reſpect of outward covenant (which is all the ground we have for judging others;) So that if the parent be in covenant, the child remaines ſo untill by his own perſonall infidelitie and apoſtaſie he diſcovenant himſelf: if the parent be out of covenant, the child remaines ſo, untill by his own perſonall faith, he accept and enter into covenant. Hence it follows, if we have ſo much ground for our judgement of charitie, to hold that the parents are regenerate, as the Apoſtles had for thoſe whom they baptized, which was no more then their profeſſion of faith and repentance; we have the ſame ground for our judgement concerning the regeneration of their children. viz profeſſion of faith and repentance made by their parents; though we may oft be deceived in parents and children, and no marvell, even the Apoſtles themſelves were deceived: for they doubtleſſe baptized many hypocrites.
As for your other objections, whether fained by your ſelf and fathered on us, or found in any writings on our ſide; they are not worthy defending, nor your anſwer unto them worthy a reply. Who ſay, that The meere election of infants, whether all or ſome, is the ground of our baptizing them, or beleeving them to be regenerate. If any ſay ſo, let him anſwer for himſelf. But our ground, as hath been ſhewed, is the externall being in covenant; whereby they have right to the ſeale of initiation; which is not without its efficacy unto al; though ſome (whether they receive it in infancy or ripeneſſe) by their own fault may render it unprofitable to themſelves. Therefore your frivolous inferences have no place here, as that, Al men & women in the world are to be baptized: for all are not outwardly in covenant. And as for your confident aſſertion, that Faith manifeſted by the confeſſion of the mouth, is the only ground of Baptiſme to the elect, (if you meane it of the profeſſion of faith of the perſon to be baptized) it is not proved by thoſe Scriptures you alledge,Act. 8.37. Rom. 14.23. (as hath been partly ſhewed already, and God willing ſhall be ſhewed more fully hereafter) unleſſe you will make the Eunuches Baptiſme with all its circumſtances, a neceſſary rule to be followed by all to be baptized. So much may ſuffice to be anſwered to your firſt conſideration.